October 16, 2007

Sanity Delivered to Us by the Far Right? What a Thought!

'The real possibility that Giuliani might be the Republican nominee led a group of religious conservatives, who met in Salt Lake City on Sept. 29 under the leadership of James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, to consider a third-party alternative.'^^^Now, wouldn't THAT be a lovely kick-in-the-teeth to the Republican Party?My idea of heaven on earth would be for the fundies to splinter off and found their own party. Then the dems could be set for a long tenure while the 2 opposition parties fought between themselves before finding their bases again -- assuming they ever did.

That could give the country the breathing space it needs to find its way back to sanity.May Giuliani hang onto his lead!

[Of course, we may have to break out the whip and the chair, ourselves, to keep Nader at bay if Clinton gets the nod. But, hopefully, we've learned our lesson during the last eight years.]

17 comments:

I've heard that Ron Paul may run as an Independent if he doesn't win the nomination.

I know I mentioned before on this blog or another that Ron Paul has quite a following in New Hampshire. My daughter told me she see's Ron Paul bumper stickers everywhere! Sure enough, there were a couple articles about it on the blogs yesterday. His campaign seems to have a life of its own. So, if Dobson backs an Independent candidate and Ron Paul runs as an Independent, the Republican party will splinter into little pieces.

TC, the picture you paint here is naturally a beautiful one. As I was finishing licking my lips and the first rush of euphoria started to wane a bit, I realized that this wish to come true would be wishing for a de facto one-party-system. Granted, it would be better than the present nazi regime but still it would be a one party system. As much as we (in power) would hate a strong opposition, without it our democracy would not survive.

Pekka--at risk of alienating you, I can't allow this to stand:I'm NOT in favor of the SCOTUS appointing our President.I'm NOT in favor of redrawing the districts in Texas so as to make it easier for one party to carry that state.I'm NOT in favor of doing essentially the same thing to California for the same reason.and I'm NOT in favor of shredding our Constitution.

so, when you accuse me of wanting to create a one party system, I just have to shake my head and walk away from the keyboard before I say something I'll regret.

agreed, ME--we'll need at least 8 years to clean up this mess -- and that's assuming whoever we elect as president is even willing to give up that much power -- which is by no means guaranteed.

and, what's got me scared -- what's got me quaking in my shoes -- is the seeming common wisdom that the US electorate won't have the patience to give us 8 years and will toss the Congress back to the Republicans in 2008 or 2010 and give the WH back in 2012.if that happens, I despair for our country.

TC, All I am here for is to have a dialog with you and perhaps most importantly to learn about Americans and their politics.

I am quite at a loss of thoughts in order to figure out why my drivel drives so many of you nuts. My intentions have never been to tell you or anybody else that you are wrong and I am always right. Suddenly it hit me, you, Americans, hate outsiders "giving you advice" and deem them somehow as bellow your standards.

It has been a shocking revelation lately when I discovered that a thin skinned and a "circle the wagons" mentality is not only a trait for the right of the center folks but this is, if not as pronounced, also with you,lefties. It took me sometime to realize this because my general philosophy is similar to those of the lefties. Where it became apparent was when I made some slightly "unacceptable" comments that went a bit against the prevailing notions with you, progressives. For an outsider, things look pretty much the way your illustrious president so aptly once put; "You are with us or you are with the enemy". There is quite frankly no real debates going on in your country. First the lines of reasonable communications have been severed between your two parties and everything is based strictly on party discipline and within each party most things are engraved on stone. As an individual, this seems to be the case with the population at large too.

What I am saying here is that my musings are tolerated by you all as long as they follow the accepted paths. Step aside on the lawn, and out come the guns.

I really like you, TC, and it has been a pleasure to read your blog and your comments and not just here but various other blogs. However, I am a known coward and when I feel that my usefulness has reached the end, I tend to move along to a little more familiar and a less hostile surroundings.

I don't expect you answering the drivel here but I wish you could answer another question that I have meant to ask for a long time; Do you really make your owns shoes? :_D

hello, Pekka-as to making my own shoes -- yes I do. I'm wearing a pair of em right now, aamof.

as to bringing out the guns -- that's not my perception of what I'm doing at all.

I may have misinterpreted your comment, but my perception was that YOUR view was that I was advocating a one-party system and I responded to that comment by stating that I did not agree with that perception.

you responded, not by presenting any clarification but by repeating DE FACTO 3 times -- I wasn't clear what _that_ meant, but answered it as best I could.

and now, you accuse me of 'bringing out the guns and refusing to listen to any other point of view.

once again, this is not my perception of what I'm doing.maybe I can make things just a little clearer, here-- if not **shrug** I will have tried:our president serves a 4 year term. there's no such thing as a vote of 'no-confidence'. our only recourse is, if he flagrantly breaks the law, to impeach. and that happens extremely rarely.

so, to hope to hold the White House for 8 years is not to advocate a one-party system. that is pretty much the norm as most presidents get voted a 2nd term.

oops--gotta cut this short -- I have an appointment I've gotta get to.

hey, ME--I was off line most of the day and hadn't heard about any tornadoes or hurricanes or anything like that.it did sprinkle here, tonight. apparently it was a 'florida sprinkle'. I wsnt out on neighborhood watch tonight [between 11:30 PM & 1:30 AM]. we never saw a drop of rain while out driving around our 8 x 8 block run -- but, when I got home, my porch railing was wet.go figure. :)

oh, I didn't know Colbert had his sights set only on SC-- too bad really --as I say, he'd be fun to watch as he romped around the WH. :)

first, I don't consider what you are saying to be, in any way, 'drivel'. anything that any commentor takes the time and effort to post on my blog, I take seriously and attempt to make a good-faith effort to answer.

[obvious flames and spams I do, often, ignore -- but I don't consider your posts to be flaming.]xxxand second, given the manner in which Congress has conducted itself since 1994 when it took a decidedly right turn, I believe I am justified in my hope that our next [almost certainly Democratic] president will find him or herself working with a Democratic Congress for _at_least_ 4 years.

Clinton was faced with a decidedly hostile Congress that worked to hamper his every move. he was under investigation for 6 of his 8 years in office. Congress desperately wanted to impeach him for SOMETHING and just kept digging and digging till they backed him into a corner on an issue that was not a crime. when they got him to lie about that non-criminal action, they sprung the trap as the lie, itself, WAS a crime. they impeached him for lying about something they had had no business investigating in the first place.

that same Republican Congress then rubber-stamped every crime the Bush administration came up with. that's why we're in the mess we're in, today.

so, yes, I hope that we will have a Democratic President for 8 years coupled with a Congress who will work _with_ him or her -- whatever its political make-up might be. given today's climate, that will almost certainly mean either a Democratic Congress or, at least, a moderate one [for a change.]

unfortunately, the Republicans who have been standing for Congressional office lately have been pretty far to the right and very hostile toward the Democratic party. I believe they blame the Democrats generally and the liberals most especially for the resignation of President Nixon and want revenge. to hope for those folks to work with a Democratic President is to wish for the moon.

generally speaking, our country's penchant for awarding the WH to one party and Congress to the other worked fairly well for almost a century. the problem is that that system broke down in 1994 with the result we see today.

TC, I thank you very much for being such an human being! You state your point with an elegance, integrity, wisdom and tact that you melt my old heart. :) However, I went to the scene of my initial crime and tried to find out what was it exactly that I wrote that brought up your ire? I didn't find it.

I try to use other words to translate my meaning better here. What I was telling you was, that for a moment I got so exited about the prospect of crushing victory by the Democrats. However, the second, more sober thought made me worry about unhealthiness of any democracy which has too weak opposition thus rendering situation in the country like yours to resemble more of a single party system. This is why I carefully used the only fancy word I know - de facto. ;)

I wish to bury the hatchet if you like, TC! And don't think it's because I am scared of being kicked with a homemade steel-toe-boot by the lady who makes them by herself. :-D

hi, Pekka and wb--I see where the misunderstanding occurred.I took your comment about wishing for a 1 party system as your perception of what _I_ was doing. that's why I said, 'Did I say that?' as that was not what I meant, at all.

I AM hoping for a strong democratic party [tho' I've seen no evidence of one lately] and for the republicans to go down in flames-- at least for a while. this country goes through such shifts on a fairly regular basis.a pretty liberal branch of the dems was strong during the 1960's and '70's. it got overconfident, overreached and got shot down during the 80's. then, in 1994, Newt Gingrich led a palace coup and took the country lurching to the far right.

the far-right-wing has shown that it will stop at nothing TO create a one-party system: they've redrawn the districts in Texas, attempted to cut California in half, stolen at least 2 presidential elections, in short-- they have done whatever they can to create a one-party system.

and THAT'S why I got up-in-arms. for a liberal to be accused of advocating the use of tactics the ultra-right have used -- well -- them's fightin' words on this side of the pond.

as to steel-toed boots-- uh -- no. I make ballet slippers and several styles of soft-soled moccasins. I USED TO make mukluks and boots -- the mukluks are now being used as umbrella stands as there's no call for sheepskin-lined boots in florida. so, your ass is safe. :)